Advertisement

Experimental Economics

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 736–754 | Cite as

Do casinos pay their customers to become risk-averse? Revising the house money effect in a field experiment

  • Maximilian RüdisserEmail author
  • Raphael Flepp
  • Egon Franck
Original Paper

Abstract

The house money effect predicts that individuals show increased risk-seeking behavior in the presence of prior windfall gains. Although the effect’s existence is widely accepted, experimental studies that compare individuals’ risk-taking behavior using house money to individuals’ risk-taking behavior using their own money produce contradictory results. This experimental field study analyzes the gambling behavior of 917 casino customers who face real losses. We find that customers who received free play at the entrance showed not higher but significantly lower levels of risk-taking behavior during their casino visit, expressed through lower average wagers. This study thus provides field evidence against the house money effect. Moreover, as a result of lower levels of risk seeking, endowed customers yield better economic results in the form of smaller own-money losses when leaving the casino.

Keywords

House money effect Decision making Field experiment Casino gambling 

JEL Classification

C93 D80 D81 

References

  1. Ackert, L., Charupat, N., Church, B. K., & Deaves, R. (2006). An experimental examination of the house money effect in a multi-period setting. Experimental Economics, 9(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aloysius, J. A. (2003). Rational escalation of costs by playing a sequence of unfavorable gambles: The martingale. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 51(1), 111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Gaming Association. (2013). State of the states: The AGA survey of casino entertainment. Washington, DC: American Gaming Association.Google Scholar
  4. Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arkes, H. R., Joyner, C., Pezzo, M., Nash, J. G., Siegel-Jacobs, K., & Stone, E. (1994). The psychology of windfall gains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59(3), 331–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barberis, N. (2012). A model of casino gambling. Management Science, 58(1), 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Battalio, R., Kagel, J., & Jiranyakul, K. (1990). Testing between alternative models of choice under uncertainty: Some initial results. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 3(1), 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beltramini, R. F. (2000). Exploring the effectiveness of business gifts: Replication and extension. Journal of Advertising, 29(2), 75–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cárdenas, J. C., De Roux, N., Jaramillo, C. R., & Martinez, L. R. (2014). Is it my money or not? An experiment on risk aversion and the house-money effect. Experimental Economics, 17(1), 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chau, A., & Phillips, J. (1995). Effects of perceived control upon wagering and attributions in computer blackjack. The Journal of General Psychology, 122(3), 253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cherry, T. L., Kroll, S., & Shogren, J. F. (2005). The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on public good contributions: Evidence from the lab. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 57(3), 357–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, J. (2002). House money effects in public good experiments. Experimental Economics, 5(3), 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Croson, R., & Sundali, J. (2005). The gambler’s fallacy and the hot hand: Empirical data from casinos. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 30(3), 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Etchart-Vincent, N., & l’Haridon, O. (2011). Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behavior toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 42(1), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Falk, A. (2007). Gift exchange in the field. Econometrica, 75(5), 1501–1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frino, A., Grant, J., & Johnstone, D. (2008). The house money effect and local traders on the Sydney Futures Exchange. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 16(1), 8–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gärling, T., & Romanus, J. (1997). Integration and segregation of prior outcomes in risky decisions. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 38(4), 289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gertner, R. (1993). Game shows and economic behavior: Risk-taking on “Card Sharks”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(2), 507–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gneezy, U., & Potters, J. (1997). An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 631–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haigh, M. S., & List, J. A. (2005). Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis. The Journal of Finance, 60(1), 523–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haisley, E., & Loewenstein, G. (2011). It’s not what you get but when you get it: The effect of gift sequence on deposit balances and customer sentiment in a commercial bank. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1), 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harrison, G. W. (2007). House money effects in public good experiments: Comment. Experimental Economics, 10(4), 429–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Houser, D., & Xiao, E. (2015). House money effects on trust and reciprocity. Public Choice, 163(1–2), 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hsu, Y. L., & Chow, E. H. (2013). The house money effect on investment risk taking: Evidence from Taiwan. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 21(1), 1102–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keasey, K., & Moon, P. (1996). Gambling with the house money in capital expenditure decisions: An experimental analysis. Economics Letters, 50(1), 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McGlothin, W. (1956). Stability of choices among uncertain alternatives. The American Journal of Psychology, 69(4), 604–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meyer, G. (2009). Problem gambling in Europe: Challenges, prevention, and interventions. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Narayanan, S., & Manchanda, P. (2012). An empirical analysis of individual level casino gambling behavior. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 10(1), 27–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peng, J., Miao, D., & Xiao, W. (2013). Why are gainers more risk seeking. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(2), 150–160.Google Scholar
  31. Rabin, M. (2002). Inference by believers in the law of small numbers. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 775–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(1), 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thaler, R. H., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science, 36(6), 643–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(5), 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weber, M., & Zuchel, H. (2005). How do prior outcomes affect risk attitude? Comparing escalation of commitment and the house-money effect. Decision Analysis, 2(1), 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Whyte, G. (1986). Escalating commitment to a course of action: A reinterpretation. Academy of Management Review, 11(2), 311–321.Google Scholar
  37. Whyte, G. (1993). Escalating commitment in individual and group decision making: A prospect theory approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54(3), 430–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maximilian Rüdisser
    • 1
    Email author
  • Raphael Flepp
    • 1
  • Egon Franck
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations